Date: 1907-04

Here, in the postscript to the work "On the Social Question in Russia," 
F. Engels cites a letter from K. Marx to the editorial board of "Fatherland 
Notes" (see K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 19, p. 119). 
6 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 22, p. 453.

NOTES ON THE BOOK "LETTERS AND EXCERPTS 
FROM LETTERS OF JOG. FIL. BECKER, JOS. DIETZGEN, 
FRIEDRICH ENGELS, KARL MARX AND OTHERS 
TO F. A. SORGE AND OTHERS." STUTTGART, 1906 1

6 letters in 
6 months *

K. MARX — F. VOLTE2
Brighton, August 25, 1871

[25] Next week you will receive the General Council's Address on aid 
to the communist émigrés3. The bulk of them (80—90 people) are in 
London. The General Council has thus far saved them from ruin, but 
over the last two weeks our financial resources have been so exhausted, 
while the number of newly arriving persons grows with each day, that 
the latter have found themselves in the most lamentable state4.

K. MARX — F. A. SORGE5
[London], November 9, 1871

[33] Here among the French émigrés a section of the International has 
formed — the French Section of 1871 (approximately 24 people), which 
immediately began to quarrel with the General Council because we de-
manded changes to its statutes. The matter will probably end in a split. 
These people are acting jointly with a part of the French émigrés in 
Switzerland, who in turn are intriguing together with the agents of the 
dissolved Alliance of Socialist Democracy (Bakunin)6. The object of 
their attacks is not the governments and ruling classes of Europe, united 
against us, but the London General Council, and in particular my hum-
ble self. This is in gratitude for the fact that I lost almost 5 months 
dealing with émigré affairs and saved their honor with an address on the 
civil war7.

K. MARX — F. VOLTE
[London], November 23, 1871

[42—43] Where the working class has not yet achieved sufficient success 
in its organization to undertake a decisive offensive against the collective 
force, that is, the political power of the ruling classes, it must in any case 
be prepared for this through constant agitation against this power and by 
assuming a hostile position toward the policy of the ruling classes. Other-
wise the working class will remain a plaything in their hands, as the Sep-
tember revolution in France demonstrated, and as the game that Mr. Glad-
stone8 & Co.9 have so far managed to conduct in England demonstrates to 
a certain degree.

K. MARX — F. A. SORGE
London, May 27, 1872

[57] Eccarius10 has become at once both a fool and a scoundrel. I will 
write to you in more detail about this later this week11.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
[London], September 21, 1872

[62] Hales12 has raised a major scandal here in the Federal Council, 
achieved an expression of censure against Marx for saying that English 
working-class leaders had been bought, but one English section here and 
one Irish section have already lodged a protest, recognizing Marx's 
rightness13. These fellows — Hales, Mottershead, Eccarius and company 
— are furious because they have had the General Council taken away from 
them14.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, October 5, 1872

[65] Here Hales has launched a colossal slanderous campaign against 
Marx and me, which, however, is already beginning to backfire on him, 
even though we have not lifted a finger to make it do so. The occasion 
was Marx's statement about the venality of English working-class lead-
ers15. . . 16

K. MARX — F. VOLTE
London, February 12, 1873

[93] The Congress, except for a small piece that Eccarius, as a hireling 
of the "Times," managed to slip into that newspaper, passed unnoticed, 
but it will be used by the schismatics on the continent. Young's speech at 
the Congress17 surpasses everything in its absurdity and baseness. It is a 
mixture of lies, distortions, and stupidity worthy of an old gossiping 
crone18.

[95] Eccarius naively declared at the London fictitious Congress that 
one should engage in politics together with the bourgeoisie. In his heart 
he has long yearned to sell himself19.

K. MARX — F. A. SORGE
[London], June 20, 1881

[177] What is common to all these "socialists," beginning with Colins20, 
is that by leaving wage labor intact, and consequently capitalist production 
intact, they thereby wish to deceive themselves or others when they claim 
that with the transformation of ground rent into a state tax all the ills of 
capitalist production must themselves disappear. Thus, all this is nothing 
other than an attempt concealed beneath the mask of socialism to save the 
rule of capitalists and in fact to reinforce it anew on an even broader 
basis than at present.

This malicious design, and along with it asinine stupidity, are plainly 
evident also in the declamations of Henry George21. This is all the more 
unforgivable to him because one could have expected the precise opposite 
formulation of the question from him, namely: how can one explain that 
in the United States, where the acquisition of land was, comparatively 
speaking, that is, in comparison with civilized Europe, accessible to the 
broad popular masses and to a certain degree (again, relatively speaking) 
has remained so even now, capitalist economy and the ensuing enslavement 
of the working class developed faster and in a more cynical form than in 
any other country?

On the other hand, George's book and the sensation it caused among 
you has this significance, that it represents the first, although unsuccessful, 
attempt to free oneself from orthodox political economy.

Mr. George appears to be completely unfamiliar with the history of the 
earlier American opponents of rent22, who were more practitioners than 
theoreticians23.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, April 29, 1886

[219] The Decazeville strike brought the differences between them and 
the Radicals to the point of rupture; five other deputies joined them. Now 
the Radicals were forced to show what their policy toward the workers was, 
and since the government exists only thanks to the Radicals, this looked 
abominable, because the workers justly laid responsibility on them for all 
the government's actions. In short, the Radicals — Clemenceau24 and all 
the rest — behaved abominably, and as a result something happened that 
had heretofore been impossible to achieve by any amount of preaching: the 
withdrawal of French workers from the Radicals. And the second result is 
this: the unification of all socialist factions for joint action25

[220—221] Here, fortunately, the movement is not developing at all. 
Hyndman26 & Co. — political careerists who spoil everything, and in the 
Socialist League27 the anarchists are making rapid progress. Morris and 
Bax28, one of emotional socialist coloring [Gemütssozialist], the other a 
seeker of philosophical paradoxes, are now entirely in their hands and must 
experience in corpore vili*, what that means. From the next issue of 
"Commonweal" you will see that Aveling, largely thanks to Tussy's29 
energy, bears no further responsibility for this charlatanry, which is very 
good. And these muddleheads want to lead the English working class! 
Fortunately, the latter wants nothing to do with this30.

* — literally: on a worthless body (as applied to anatomical experiments 
on animals); here: on one's own skin.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, September 16—17, 1886

[235] In such an original country as America, which has developed along 
a purely bourgeois path, without any feudal past, but which has neverthe-
less indiscriminately taken over from England a whole heap of ideological 
remnants inherited from the feudal epoch — such as English common law, 
religion, sectarianism; in a country where the need for practical activity 
and the concentration of capital has led to universal contempt for all theory, 
from which only the most educated layers of the intelligentsia are now be-
ginning to free themselves, — in such a country people will be able to 
clarify their own social interests only by making one mistake after another. 
The workers cannot avoid this; confusion in the ranks of trade unions, 
socialists, "Knights of Labor," etc. will continue for some time yet, and 
only the harm they cause themselves will force them to become wiser. But 
the main thing is that they have been set in motion, that the matter has 
gone forward, the ice has broken, and now everything will proceed quickly 
— more quickly than anywhere else, although in its own particular way, 
which from a theoretical standpoint may appear almost nonsensical31.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, November 29, 1886

[238—239] The boom with Henry George certainly revealed a great multi-
tude of fraudulent tricks, and I am glad I was not present for it. But no 
matter what, it was a significant day. The Germans have never managed 
to make a lever out of their theory that would set the American masses in 
motion. They in most cases do not even understand this theory themselves 
and regard it doctrinarily and dogmatically, as something that must be 
memorized by heart, and then it will suffice for all cases in life. For them 
it is a dogma, not a guide to action. Moreover, they on principle do not 
study the English language. Therefore the American masses were forced 
to seek their own path and found it, it seems, for the time being in the 
"Knights of Labor"32, whose confused principles and ridiculous organization 
seem to correspond to their own confusion. But judging from what I hear, 
the "Knights of Labor" represent, especially in New England and the West, 
a real force, and in view of the fierce hostility of the capitalists this force 
grows with each passing day. I think that it is necessary to work among 
them, to educate within this still completely malleable mass a nucleus of 
people who understand the essence of the movement and its aims and 
would thus take the leadership, at least of a part of the present "order," 
into their own hands when the inevitable split of it comes. The weakest 
side of the "Knights of Labor" was their abstention from politics, which 
simply amounted to the knavery of various Powderlys33 and so on. But this 
abstention was ended by the conduct of the masses during the November 
elections, especially in New York. The first and most important step for 
any newly entering country must always be the organization of workers 
into an independent political party, — no matter by what means this is 
achieved, as long as it is truly a workers' party. And this step was taken 
much faster than we could have expected, and that is the main thing. That 
the first program of this party is still confused and extremely unsatisfactory, 
that it has made Henry George its standard-bearer, — all this is an unavoid-
able evil, but a transitory one. The masses must have time and opportunity 
to develop, and they will receive this opportunity only when they have 
their own movement — it is all the same in what form, as long as it is their 
own movement, in which they will move forward, learning from their own 
mistakes, from their own bitter experience.

The movement in America is at the present moment at the stage at which 
it stood with us before 1848; truly intelligent people will initially have to 
play the role there that the Communist League played before 1848 in the 
workers' unions.

Only in America will all this now proceed incomparably faster; for such 
results at the elections to be achieved after only some eight months of the 
movement's existence — this is simply unheard of. And if anything is lacking, 
the bourgeoisie will help make it up. Nowhere in the entire world do they 
conduct themselves so brazenly and despotically as with you, and your 
judges will with success outdo the pettifoggery of Bismarck's empire. Where 
the bourgeoisie conduct the struggle with such means, the matter quickly 
comes to a denouement, and if we in Europe do not hurry up, the Ameri-
cans will soon overtake us. But it is precisely now doubly necessary that 
there be among our people there a small group of people who firmly master 
the theory and the old, tested tactics, and also speak and write in English, 
since the Americans for quite understandable historical reasons have tre-
mendously lagged behind on all theoretical questions. Although they have 
not adopted medieval institutions from Europe, they have nonetheless as-
similated many medieval traditions, religion, English common (feudal) law, 
superstition, spiritualism, — in short, all this nonsense which did not 
directly hinder commercial affairs, and now is very useful for befuddling 
the masses. If, however, there were people with clear theoretical thinking 
there who could predict to them in advance the consequences of their own 
mistakes, explain to them that every movement which does not have before 
it constantly the final aim — the abolition of the system of wage labor — 
will inevitably go astray and suffer defeat, then it would be possible to 
avoid many stupidities and the entire process would be greatly shortened. 
But all this must be done in the English manner; the special characteristics 
of the German character must be discarded, and the gentlemen from 
"Sozialist" are hardly capable of this, while the gentlemen from 
"Volkszeitung"* are clever only in commercial matters34.

F. ENGELS — FLORENCE KELLEY-WISCHNEWETZKY35
London, December 28, 1886

[242—243] My preface will, of course, be wholly devoted to the enormous 
successes achieved by American workers over the last 10 months, and 
naturally will also touch on Henry George and his agrarian program. It 
cannot, however, claim to be a thorough elucidation of this question; 
moreover, I do not think that the time for this has yet come. It is far more 
important that the movement spread, develop harmoniously, take root, and 
encompass, as far as possible, the entire American proletariat, than that 
it proceed and develop from the very beginning on an impeccably correct 
theoretical foundation. For clarity of theoretical understanding there is 
no better path than to learn from one's own mistakes, from one's own bitter 
experience, and for an entire large class there is no other path, especially 
with such an exclusively practical and so disdainful of theory nation as the 
Americans. The most important thing is to achieve that the working class 
enters into motion as a class; and once this is achieved, it will soon find 
the correct direction, and anyone who proves to be an obstacle — whether 
it be Henry George or Powderly — will be thrown overboard along with 
his little sect. Therefore I consider the "Knights of Labor" the most impor-
tant factor of the movement; they should not be treated with contempt or 
from the sidelines, but must be revolutionized from within. In my opinion, 
many of the Germans living in America made a big mistake when, faced 
with a powerful and victorious movement created without their participa-
tion, they attempted to turn their imported and not always correctly 
understood theory into a kind of all-saving dogma and kept aloof from any 
movement that did not accept this dogma. Our theory is not a dogma, but 
an exposition of the process of development, which includes a series of 
successive phases*. To count on Americans entering into the movement 
with a full understanding of the theory worked out in the older industrial 
countries — that means to count on the impossible. The Germans should 
have acted according to their own theory, — if they understand it as we 
understood it in 1845—1848, — participate in every truly general movement 
of the working class, taking its actual point of departure as it is, and 
gradually raising it to the level of theory, pointing out that every mistake 
made, every failure is an inevitable consequence of the incorrect theoretical 
positions in the initial program. In the words of the "Communist Manifesto," 
they should uphold the future of the movement in the movement of today. 
But above all give the movement time to strengthen itself and do not inten-
sify the inevitable confusion at first by imposing on people things which 
they cannot properly understand at the given moment, but which they will 
soon learn. One or two million working-class votes that would be cast in 
November of next year for a truly workers' party are at the present moment 
infinitely more important than a hundred thousand votes cast for a theoreti-
cally impeccable program36.

* This phrase is also underlined by V. I. Lenin in the German translation 
of the letter on p. 245 of the book.

F. ENGELS — FLORENCE KELLEY-WISCHNEWETZKY
[London], January 27, 1887

[248—249] When we returned to Germany in spring 1848, we joined the 
Democratic Party because it was the only possible means of drawing the 
attention of the working class; we were its most advanced wing, but still 
its wing. In founding the International, Marx composed its General Statutes37 
in such a way that all proletarian socialists of that period could join it — 
Proudhonists, followers of Pierre Leroux38 and even the most advanced 
part of English trade unions; and only through this breadth did the 
International become what it was — the means of gradual dissolution and 
absorption of all these small sects, except for the anarchists, whose sudden 
appearance in various countries was only the result of fierce bourgeois 
reaction after the Commune, and to whom we could therefore calmly allow 
to die their own death, which is what happened. Where would we be now 
if in the period from 1864 to 1873 we had insisted on cooperating only 
with those who openly accepted our platform? In my opinion, our entire 
practical activity showed that one can keep in step with the general move-
ment of the working class at each stage of this movement without sacrific-
ing or concealing one's own clearly expressed position and even while 
maintaining organization; I fear that if the Germans in America choose 
another path, they will make a large mistake39.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, March 3, 1887

[256] As long as Bebel stands beside him*, he, although he causes no 
small amount of unnecessary trouble and squabbles, will not make major 
blunders. And when it comes to a break with the philistines, he will defend 
them until the last moment, but at the decisive moment will take the correct 
position40.

* Together with W. Liebknecht.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, April 23, 1887

[262] In Germany — persecutions upon persecutions. Bismarck apparently 
wants to prepare everything so that at the moment when revolution flares 
up in Russia, — and now this is probably only a matter of months, — 
things will immediately come to a boil in Germany as well41.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, June 18, 1887

[270] For now I am sending you "Commonweal" in connection with the 
polemic between Bax and Bradlaugh42. Hardly will Bax, in the view of the 
broad public, overcome the cunning Bradlaugh. He is very talented, occupies 
himself much, | but | is still firmly mired in German philosophy, which 
he will probably overcome in time, but for now is far from having digested 
it.

Now soon it will be time to publish the letter from Marx to you on Henry 
George43. Perhaps after the forthcoming November elections in New York44, 
if George makes a big splash there again. One had to give him the opportu-
nity either to develop further or to compromise himself, and he apparently 
prefers the latter45.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
Eastbourne, August 8, 1887

[274] Things have finally gotten underway with you, and if I am not mis-
taken about the Americans, they will astonish all of us both by the grandeur 
of their movement and by the enormity of the mistakes they commit, the 
price of which they will ultimately use to achieve clarity. In practice — 
ahead of everyone, but as for theory — still in swaddling clothes, — that 
is how it stands, and it cannot be otherwise. And moreover — a country 
without traditions (except religious ones), which began with a democratic 
republic, and a people full of energy as no other people is. The movement 
will not proceed along the classical straight line, but in sharp zigzags, and 
in places it will seem to be retreating, but there this will matter far less 
than with us. Henry George was an inevitable evil, but he will be forgotten 
just as much as Powderly and even McGlynn46, whose brief popularity in 
such a devout country is quite understandable47.

F. ENGELS — FLORENCE KELLEY-WISCHNEWETZKY
London, September 15, 1887

[277] George's renunciation of the socialists48 is, in my opinion, an 
undeserved stroke of luck, which to a considerable extent corrects the 
inevitable mistake that George was placed at the head of a movement which 
he did not even understand. George as the standard-bearer of the entire 
workers' movement was dangerous; George as the leader of the Georgists 
will soon become a thing of the past, become the leader of a sect like 
thousands of other sects in America49.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, September 16, 1887

[280—281] Marx's letter on George50 I will be able to find again only when 
I set about putting my papers in order, that is, when I receive the new 
bookcases I have ordered and will have free space. Then you will immedi-
ately receive the translation. There is no hurry — let George get himself 
even more tangled up. His renunciation of the socialists is the greatest 
stroke of luck for us. His proclamation in November of last year as standard-
bearer51 was an inevitable mistake, for which one had to pay. The masses 
can be set in motion only by the path that corresponds to the given country 
and the given specific conditions, and this is mostly a roundabout path. 
Everything else is unimportant if only a real upheaval takes place. But 
the inevitable blunders in this never pass without consequences. So too 
here one could fear that the proclamation of the founder of a sect as 
standard-bearer would burden the movement for years with the stupidities 
of sectarianism. But George, casting out the founders of the movement, 
organizing his own special orthodoxly Georgist sect, proclaiming his own 
narrow-mindedness as the source of the entire movement*, thereby saves 
the movement and destroys himself52.

* A play on words: "Borniertheit" — "narrow-mindedness," "Born" — "source."

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, February 22, 1888

[291] Whether there will be war or not, but everything is approaching a 
crisis. The present situation in Russia cannot continue much longer. It is 
curtains for the Hohenzollerns, the crown prince is mortally ill, his son — 
an invalid — an insolent guards officer53. In France the fall of the bourgeois 
republic of exploiters is approaching ever closer. Scandals like those in 
1847 threaten, no matter what, to bring about revolution54. And here the 
masses are increasingly seized by an instinctive socialism which, fortu-
nately, still resists any dogmatic formulations by one or another socialist 
organization, and consequently the masses will all the more easily perceive 
decisive events. Let only things start somewhere, and the bourgeoisie will 
be struck by the hidden socialism which will then break through and 
become manifest55.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, June 8, 1889

[314—315] The crux of the matter is — and this was the reason I seized 
upon the matter so ardently — that the old split in the International, the 
former struggle at the Hague56 are coming back on the agenda. The adver-
sary is the same, with only the difference that the banner of the anarchists 
has been replaced by the banner of the Possibilists; the same sale of one's 
principles to the bourgeoisie for partial concessions, and mainly for 
warm little sinecures for the leaders (members of city municipalities, 
Labour Exchanges, etc.). And the tactics are completely the same. The 
"Manifesto of the Social-Democratic Federation," clearly written by Brousse57, 
is a new edition of the Souvellaire circular58. And Brousse knows this: he 
still attacks authoritarian Marxism, using the same lies and slander, and 
Hyndman echoes him.

The primary source of his information about the International and 
Marx's political activity are the discontented elements of the General 
Council here — Eccarius, Young and Co.

The union of the Possibilists and the Social-Democratic Federation was 
supposed to constitute the nucleus of a new International, which was to 
be founded in Paris either together with the Germans, if they joined as a 
"third in the alliance," or against them. Hence the multitude of little 
congresses, constantly following one after another; hence also the irreconcil-
ability with which the allies declared all other French and English trends 
non-existent; hence the intrigues, especially with the small nations, on 
which Bakunin also relied. It became difficult to act in the same spirit 
when the Germans, after the Saint Gallen resolution59, quite naively — in 
complete ignorance of what was happening outside — included themselves 
in the movement for a congress. And since those little people preferred to 
go against the Germans rather than with them, — for they were considered 
too saturated with Marxism, — the struggle became inevitable. You cannot 
imagine how naïve the Germans are! It took me enormous efforts to explain, 
even to Bebel himself, what the matter actually was, while the Possibilists 
understand it perfectly and talk about it every day60.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, July 20, 1889

[319] Phew! The bubble of reconciliation in Paris has burst. What a stroke 
of luck that the Possibilists and the Social-Democratic Federation, correctly 
assessing their position, preferred to give our people a kick; this put an 
end to all the speculation. The whole matter had long been prepared in 
advance, which is confirmed by a whole series of now comprehensible 
maneuvers and declarations by these gentlemen over the course of two 
months. Here is the old Bakunist slander about the Hague Congress and 
so on, as if we always operated with forged mandates61. This slander, 
constantly fueled by Brousse since 1883, was taken up again here as soon 
as they saw that they were abandoned by all socialists and could save 
themselves only with the help of trade unions. How their mandates stand 
will be shown by the fierce polemic now breaking out. Alas, this old junk, 
which produced no impression whatsoever in 1873, produces even less 
impression now; but something had to be invented to conceal the colossal 
fiasco that befell these gentlemen. And our sentimental peace-loving 
brethren deserved to get a rude kick in the softest spot for all their 
friendliness. Perhaps this will cure them for a while62.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, December 7, 1889

[323—325] An example of how it is not at all simple to drum in doctrinarily 
and dogmatically something to a large nation, even if you possess the very 
best theory, which has grown out of the nation's own vital conditions, and 
even if you have relatively better instructors than those at the disposal of 
the Socialist Labour Party, we see here in England. The movement has finally 
moved from dead center, and, as it seems to me, finally. But it is not directly 
socialist, and those English who have best understood our theory stand out-
side the movement: Hyndman, because he is an incorrigible intriguer and 
envious person, Bax, because he is a bookish scholar...

The most abominable thing here is the bourgeois "respectability" that 
has soaked into the very flesh and blood of the workers. The social strati-
fication of society into innumerable, undoubtedly universally recognized 
gradations, each of which has its own pride, but at the same time is perme-
ated by an inborn sense of respect for the "better" and "higher" classes, 
is so old and so stable that it is still no great effort for the bourgeoisie 
to win over the workers. I, for example, am far from certain that John Burns 
in his heart is not prouder of his popularity with Cardinal Manning63, the 
Lord Mayor64 and the bourgeoisie in general than with his own class. And 
Champion65 — a retired lieutenant — some years ago had some dealings with 
bourgeois elements, especially conservatives, and preached socialism at a 
church conference of clergy and so on. And even Tom Mann66, whom I con-
sider the best among them, likes to talk about how he will breakfast with 
the Lord Mayor. And when you compare them with the French, you see how 
beneficial the effect of revolution is. In any case, the bourgeoisie will profit 
little if they succeed in drawing some of the leaders into their nets. By that 
time the movement will be strong enough to overcome all this67.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, August 9, 1890

[343—344] In Germany a little scandal is being prepared for the Con-
gress68. Mr. Schippel — fostered by Liebknecht — and other litterateurs 
want to speak out against party leadership and create an opposition69. After 
the repeal of the law against socialists70, it would have been simply impossi-
ble to forbid this. The party is so large that absolute freedom of exchange 
of opinion within it is a necessity. Otherwise it would be impossible simply 
to assimilate and educate the numerous new elements that have come into 
the party over the last 3 years; some of this is completely immature, raw 
material. To 700,000 new members over 3 years (counting only those par-
ticipating in elections) you cannot drum in things as you would to school-
boys; here discussions and even some small scuffles are necessary, this is 
useful at first. There is no reason to fear any possibility of a split; this 
danger is eliminated by 12 years of oppression. But these same self-satisfied 
litterateurs, striving to forcefully satisfy their megalomania, are intriguing 
and playing at being wise and thereby cause the party leadership much 
additional trouble and vexation and provoke far greater irritation against 
themselves than they deserve... The largest party in the empire cannot exist 
without various shades manifesting themselves in abundance, and one must 
avoid even the appearance of dictatorship on the model of Schweitzer71...72

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, October 24, 1891

[371] Despite the famine in Russia, the danger of war is increasing. The 
Russians want to quickly and thoroughly use the new alliance with France 
by diplomatic means, although I am convinced that Russian diplomacy does 
not want war, which under conditions of famine would be madness, however 
it is not excluded that the militaristic and Pan-Slavic (now supported by 
a very strong industrial bourgeoisie for the sake of market expansion) current 
will gain the upper hand, and in Vienna, Berlin, or Paris such stupidities 
might be allowed that would lead to the unleashing of war. In connection 
with this we corresponded with Bebel and we are of the opinion that if the 
Russians begin war with us, then German socialists will fight against the 
Russians and their allies to the death, whoever they may be. If Germany 
is strangled, then we go down with her. In the event of a favorable turn, 
the struggle will assume such fierce proportions that Germany will be able 
to hold out only through revolutionary measures, which is why we will very 
possibly be forced to take the helm of government and replay 1793. Bebel 
gave a speech on this subject in Berlin, which caused a great stir in the 
French press73. I will try to explain this question to the French in their 
own language, which is, to be sure, not easy. And although I would consider 
it a great misfortune if things came to war and if it brought us to power 
before our time, nonetheless one must be prepared for this eventuality too, 
and I am glad that on this question I have Bebel on my side — the most 
capable of our comrades74.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, January 18, 1893

[390] The Fabians here in London represent a gang of careerists, astute 
enough to understand the inevitability of social transformation, but in no 
way willing to entrust this gigantic task to an immature proletariat. And 
therefore they have been so good as to place themselves at its head. Their 
basic principle is fear of revolution. They are "educated"* par excellence**. 
Their socialism is municipal socialism: the commune, and not the nation, 
should, at least initially, become the owner of the means of production. 
Their own socialism they depict as the extreme but inevitable consequence 
of bourgeois liberalism. Hence their tactics: not to wage decisive struggle 
against the liberals as opponents, but to push them toward socialist conclu-
sions, that is, to hoodwink them, to "saturate liberalism with socialism," 
not to oppose socialist candidates to the liberals, but to slip and impose 
them on the liberals, that is, to put them through by deception. But that 
they themselves are either deceived and duped, or present socialism in a 
false light, this they naturally do not understand.

The Fabians have published with great care alongside various trash and 
some good propaganda writings, and this is the best of everything that has 
been done by the English in this field. But as soon as they return to their 
specific tactic — the obscuring of class struggle — things go wrong. Out 
of class struggle they fanatically hate Marx and all of us.

The Fabians certainly count many bourgeois supporters, and therefore 
they have money at their disposal. In the provinces their ranks include 
many capable workers who did not want to have anything to do with the 
Social-Democratic Federation.

And five-sixths of the provincial members of this organization more or 
less share our point of view and will decisively break away from the Fabians 
at a critical moment. In Bradford, where they also had representatives, they 
repeatedly and decisively spoke out against the London Executive Committee 
of the Fabians76.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, May 12, 1891

[412] The Social-Democratic Federation here shares with your German-
American socialists78 the distinction of being the only party that has man-
aged to turn Marx's theory of development into petrified orthodoxy, to an 
understanding of which workers must come not guided by their own class 
instinct, but by swallowing it whole and without argument as a symbol of 
faith. Therefore both parties remain only sects and will arrive, as Hegel 
says, from nothing through nothing to nothing79...80

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, November 10, 1891

[414] The movement here still reminds one of the American movement, 
with only the difference that it is somewhat ahead of yours. In the masses 
there is increasingly taking root the instinctive understanding that workers 
must form their own party in opposition to both official parties, and during 
the municipal elections of November 1 this manifested itself more clearly 
than ever. But all sorts of deep-rooted traditional views and the lack of 
people capable of turning this instinct into conscious action on a national 
scale lead to the movement stalling for a long time at this preliminary 
stage of vague ideas and isolation of local actions. Anglo-Saxon sectarianism 
dominates in the workers' movement as well. The Social-Democratic Feder-
ation, just like your German Socialist Labour Party, has managed to turn 
our theory into petrified dogma of an orthodox sect; it abides in its narrow 
isolation and moreover, thanks to Hyndman, adheres in international politics 
to a thoroughly rotten tradition, which can be shaken from time to time, but 
which is far from being overcome. The tactics of the Independent Labour 
Party81 are in the highest degree vague, and its leader Keir Hardie — a very 
cunning Scot, whose demagogic tricks cannot be trusted for a moment. He, 
being a poor man from Scottish coal miners, founded a large weekly news-
paper "Labour Leader"82, which could not have been done without large sums 
of money, and this money he received from the Tories or from the Liberal 
Unionists83, that is, from opponents of Gladstone and home rule84, there 
can be no doubt about this. This is confirmed both by his well-known liter-
ary connections in London and by direct facts, as well as by his political 
line. Because of this he can very easily lose his seat in parliament at the 
general elections of 1895... 

[415] On the continent, as the movement grows, the striving for even 
greater successes increases, and the hunt for peasants, in the literal sense 
of the word, is becoming fashionable. First the French through Lafargue 
declared at the Congress that not only is it not our business to directly 
accelerate the impoverishment of small peasantry — capitalism will take 
care of that for us (which I wrote to them about85), — but that we must 
directly defend the small peasant against the tax collector, the usurer, and 
large landowners. But we cannot possibly agree to this, because it is, first, 
stupid, and second — it is impossible. Following this, Vollmar appears in 
Frankfurt and intends to buy up the peasants altogether, and moreover the 
peasant he is dealing with in Upper Bavaria is not the Rhine peasant, crushed 
by debt, but a middle and even large peasant, who exploits farmhands and 
farmmaids and trades in cattle and grain on a large scale. And with this 
one cannot agree without renouncing all principles. We can acquire the 
Alpine peasant, the Lower Saxon and Schleswig-Holstein large peasant only 
if we give them lock, stock, and barrel along with the farmhands and day 
laborers, and then we will lose politically more than we gain87.

F. ENGELS — F. A. SORGE
London, December 4, 1894

[418] The Bavarians have become very opportunistic and have transformed 
themselves almost into an ordinary people's party (this refers to the majority 
of leaders and many newcomers who entered the party); in the Bavarian 
Diet they voted for the budget as a whole, while Vollmar developed agitation 
in favor of peasants in order to attract to his side the Upper Bavarian large 
peasants — people who own 25—80 acres of land (10—30 hectares) and 
consequently cannot possibly do without hired laborers, — not their farm-
hands. They expected nothing good for themselves from the Frankfurt Party 
Congress88. Therefore they convene, eight days before it, their own Bavarian 
Party Congress89 and establish there a veritable Sonderbund90, obligating 
the Bavarian delegates to vote in Frankfurt on all Bavarian questions collec-
tively, according to decisions already adopted at the Bavarian Congress. Thus 
they arrive in Frankfurt and declare that they had to approve the budget as 
a whole in Bavaria because it could not have been done otherwise at that 
moment; moreover it was supposedly a purely Bavarian question which others 
should have no say in. In other words: if you pass a decision not to our liking, 
if you reject our ultimatum, then in case of a split the blame will fall on 
you! 91

159* — Most and Dühring.
Hochberg92.
163 — On Most93.
176 — On George * * 94.
199: Petty bourgeois prejudice***95
203 — idem96
220 97
250 98
260 — idem99

199: Petty bourgeois prejudice. (Steamship subsidies****)
203 idem
NB 204 idem (Split*****)
220: in quiet times become philistine and petty-bourgeois******
260 and 262 Russia and Germany — things will come to a boil*******
147 — on Chernyshevsky100
137 — English workers101

* The notes printed below were made by V. I. Lenin on the back of a sheet 
with advertisements for new books and on the 3rd and 4th pages of the book's 
cover.
** — Henry George.
*** — petty bourgeois prejudices.
**** — steamship subsidies.
***** — split.
****** — in quiet times everything becomes philistine and petty-bourgeois.
******* — things will boil up in Russia and Germany.

# ANNOTATIONS AND NOTES

Page 65, 102
270 — on Bax and 221 103
248 — Marx and I in 48 were a "wing" of the democrats 104.
Regarding George: 238,
270,
274,
277,
280 105.
Engels
243 on the American workers' movement.
"not a dogma, but" 106
cf. 238 (NB) learn from mistakes (letter
86) 107
235 — American workers' movement.
("A path senseless from the theoretical
standpoint" *)10fc

1 Notes and remarks made by V. I. Lenin while reading the book "Briefe und Auszüge aus Briefen von Joh. Phil. Becker, Jos. Dietzgen, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx u. A. an F. A. Sorge und Andere," published in 1906 in Stuttgart. As early as 1907, this book was printed in Petrograd in the Russian language with a preface written by V. I. Lenin on April 6 (19), 1907 (see Complete Collected Works, vol. 15, pp. 229–249), in which Lenin indicated that the book "represents a necessary supplement to our leading Marxist literature" (ibid., p. 231). The numerous annotations made by Lenin while reading the German edition of the book were used in writing the preface to the Russian edition.

V. I. Lenin made annotations on 29 letters of K. Marx and F. Engels, and on the final pages of the book sketched a peculiar thematic index, noting the page and subject of each letter. This record covers 28 letters.

The criticism contained in the letters of K. Marx and F. Engels of English and American socialists for their detachment from the workers' movement, for sectarianism, for turning Marxism into a dogma, the criticism of English workers' leaders for their opportunism, for their venality to the bourgeoisie — V. I. Lenin repeatedly employed in his works: "The International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart," "The Agrarian Program of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution of 1905–1907," "A Meeting of the International Socialist Bureau," "On Certain Peculiarities of the Historical Development of Marxism," "English Pacifism and English Distaste for Theory," "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism," "Speech at the Third All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions, April 7, 1920," "On the Tasks of the Third International," and others (see Complete Collected Works, vol. 16, pp. 80, 338, 409; vol. 17, p. 239; vol. 20, p. 84; vol. 26, p. 267; vol. 30, p. 170; vol. 39, p. 98; vol. 40, pp. 310–311).

V. I. Lenin's annotations in the book were made in black, blue, and red pencil.

2 Friedrich Sorge — a figure in the American workers' movement, secretary of the Federal Council of North American sections of the International (1872), member of the editorial board of "Arbeiter-Zeitung," member of the General Council (1872–1874), elected by the Hague Congress; in 1874 he was expelled from the International in connection with the incorrect line pursued by "Arbeiter-Zeitung."

3 An appeal to members of American sections of the International calling for raising funds for a relief fund for Paris Commune emigrants was written by K. Marx and sent in the name of F. A. Sorge, as is evident from Marx's letter to Sorge of September 5 (see K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 242). The text of this appeal is not in the possession of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the CC CPSU.

4 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 238.

5 Friedrich Adolf Sorge — a prominent figure in the international and American workers' and socialist movement, participant in the 1848 revolution; emigrated to the USA in 1852, organizer of American sections of the International, secretary of the Federal Council, delegate to the Hague Congress (1872), general secretary (1872–1874) of the General Council in New York; active propagandist of Marxism; friend and comrade-in-arms of K. Marx and F. Engels.

6 This refers to a group of French emigrants — participants in the Commune who joined the Bakuninists in Switzerland (A. Clarins, B. Malon, J. Guesde, André Léo, and others). In September 1871, these French emigrants, together with members of the former Geneva section of the "Alliance of Socialist Democracy," created a section of propaganda and revolutionary socialist action.

M. A. Bakunin — a Russian revolutionary and publicist; participant in the 1848–1849 revolution in Germany; one of the ideologues of Populism and anarchism; in the International acted as a fierce enemy of Marxism; at the Hague Congress in 1872, he was expelled from the International for schismatic activity.

7 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 268.

8 William Ewart Gladstone — an English statesman, in the second half of the 19th century — one of the leaders of the Liberal Party; Chancellor of the Exchequer (Minister of Finance) (1852–1855 and 1859–1866) and Prime Minister (1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886, 1892–1894).

9 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 283.

10 Johann Georg Eccarius (John George) — a prominent figure in the international and German workers' movement, a workers' publicist, an émigré in London, member of the League of the Just, then of the Communist League, one of the leaders of the London Communist Educational Society of German Workers, member of the General Council of the International (1864–1872), general secretary of the Council (1867–1871), secretary-correspondent for America (1870–1872), delegate to all congresses and conferences of the International; after the Hague Congress joined reformist leaders of English trade unions; subsequently — a figure in the trade-union movement.

11 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 397.

12 John Hales — a figure in the English trade-unionist movement, member of the General Council of the International (1866–1872) and its secretary (1871–1872), member of the Land and Labour League, delegate to the London Conference (1871) and the Hague Congress (1872) of the International; chairman, then secretary of the British Federal Council, headed its reformist wing, struggled against K. Marx and his supporters; expelled from the International by a decision of the General Council of May 30, 1873.

13 At a meeting of the British Federal Council in September 1872, the council's chairman D. Hales, supported by the reformist majority, succeeded in censuring K. Marx for his speech at the congress in The Hague, which criticized the leaders of trade unions (see K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 18, p. 639). Many sections of the British Federation expressed protest against this decision and the conduct of the reformists, who sought to expel Marx from the International.

In the article "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism," in the "Speech at the Third All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions, April 7, 1920," and in other works, V. I. Lenin uses this passage from F. Engels' letter to F. A. Sorge to illustrate the struggle waged by K. Marx against opportunistic leaders of trade unions (see V. I. Lenin. Complete Collected Works, vol. 30, p. 170; vol. 40, p. 310).

14 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 437.

Thomas J. Mottershead — an English worker, member of the General Council of the International (1869–1872), delegate to the Hague Congress (1872); after the Hague Congress headed the reformist wing of the British Federal Council; expelled from the International by a decision of the General Council of May 30, 1873.

15 This refers to K. Marx's speech at a session of the Hague Congress of the International on September 3, 1872 (see K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 18, p. 639).

16 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 442.

17 This refers to a congress convened by the reformist section of the British Federal Council on January 26, 1873. At the congress, attended by 12 delegates, the decisions of the Hague Congress were rejected, and in this way its participants placed themselves outside the International.

Hermann Jung — a prominent figure in the international and Swiss workers' movement, an émigré in London, member of the General Council of the International, member of the British Federal Council (1872); prior to the Hague Congress (September 1872) followed Marx's line, then joined the reformist wing in the International.

18 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 472.

19 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 33, p. 474.

20 Jean Guérard Cesar Alexander Hippolyte Colins — a French petty-bourgeois economist, Belgian by origin; advocated the appropriation of land rent by the state as a means of resolving all social contradictions of the capitalist order.

21 Henry George — an American publicist, bourgeois economist; propagandized the idea of nationalization of land by the bourgeois state as a means of resolving all social contradictions of the capitalist order; attempted to lead the movement of American workers and direct it toward bourgeois reformism.

22 Anti-renters were called tenants of land in the state of New York in the 1830s and 1840s of the 19th century who refused to pay rent to large landowners and demanded that they be sold farms in full ownership. Tenants offered armed resistance to tax collectors who attempted to collect rent by force. The most significant tenant upheavals occurred from 1836 to 1845. The struggle between tenants and landowners ended in compromise: from 1846, large landowners began the gradual sale of their lands to tenants.

23 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 35, pp. 164–165.

24 Georges Benjamin Clemenceau — a French bourgeois political figure and publicist, from the 1880s — leader of the Radical Party; Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1906–1909 and 1917–1920), pursued imperialist policy.

25 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, pp. 407–408.

26 Henry Mayers Hyndman — an English socialist, reformist; founder (1881) and leader of the Democratic Federation, transformed in 1884 into the Social-Democratic Federation, pursued an opportunistic and sectarian line in the workers' movement; subsequently — one of the leaders of the British Socialist Party, from which he was expelled in 1916 for agitation in favor of the imperialist war.

27 The Socialist League — an English socialist organization, founded in December 1884 by a group of socialists who left the Social-Democratic Federation due to dissatisfaction with the opportunistic line of its leadership. Among the organizers of the League were E. Marx, E. B. Bax, W. Morris, and others. In the first years of the League's existence, its activists participated actively in the workers' movement. But soon anarchist elements gained the upper hand within the League, many of its organizers, including E. Marx-Aveling and E. Aveling, left its ranks, and by 1889 the League had dissolved.

28 William Morris — an English poet, writer, and artist, in the 1880s participated in workers' and socialist movements, in 1884–1889 — one of the leaders of the Socialist League, from the late 1880s came under the influence of anarchists.

Ernest Belfort Bax — an English socialist, historian, philosopher, and journalist; one of the first propagandists of Marxism in England; an active figure of the left wing of the Social-Democratic Federation; one of the founders of the Socialist League; from 1883 maintained friendly relations with F. Engels; one of the founders (1911) and leaders of the British Socialist Party; during the First World War — a social-chauvinist.

29 Edward Aveling — an English socialist, writer, publicist, one of the translators of vol. 1 of K. Marx's "Capital" into English; from 1884 — member of the Social-Democratic Federation, then — one of the founders of the Socialist League, in the late 1880s and early 1890s — one of the organizers of the mass movement of unskilled workers and the unemployed; delegate to the International Socialist Workers' Congress of 1889; author of a number of works on the propagation of Marxism and Darwinism, on questions of the workers' movement; husband of Marx's daughter Eleanor.

Eleanor Marx-Aveling (Tussy) — a figure in the English and international movement, the youngest daughter of K. Marx. She was among the founders of the Socialist League (1884) and the Independent Labour Party (1893) of England; took energetic part in the mass movement of unskilled workers; actively contributed to English and German socialist publications.

30 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, p. 409.

31 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, p. 451.

32 "Knights of Labor" — an abbreviated name for the "Order of the Knights of Labor," an organization of American workers, founded in 1869 in Philadelphia and until 1878 having the character of a secret society; the "Order" united mainly unskilled workers, including many Negroes; it aimed at establishing cooperatives and organizing mutual aid and participated in a series of actions by the working class. However, the leadership of the "Order," in essence, rejected workers' participation in political struggle and stood on the position of class collaboration; in 1886, the leadership of the "Order" opposed a nationwide strike by forbidding its members from participating in it; nevertheless, rank-and-file members of the "Order" participated in the strike; after this, the "Order" began to lose its influence among the workers and by the end of the 1890s had dissolved.

33 Terence Vincent Powderly — one of the opportunistic leaders of the workers' movement in the USA in the 1870s–1890s; in 1879–1893 — leader of the "Order of the Knights of Labor," opposed the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, advocated collaboration with the bourgeoisie; in 1896 joined the Republican Party.

34 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, pp. 488–490.

35 Florence Kelley-Wischnewetzky — an American socialist, translator of F. Engels' "The Condition of the Working Class in England" into English; subsequently adopted reformist positions. Was occupied mainly with questions of labor legislation and social policy. Was a factory inspector, worked in the American cooperative movement.

36 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, pp. 497–498.

37 K. Marx. "Provisional Rules of the Association" (see K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 16, pp. 12–15).

38 Pierre Leroux — a French petty-bourgeois publicist, utopian socialist, one of the representatives of Christian socialism.

39 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, pp. 504–505.

40 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, p. 526.

41 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, p. 544.

42 In the journal "The Commonweal" nos. 71, 72, 74, 76, 79, and 80 of May 21 and 28, June 11 and 25, July 16 and 23, 1887, there was a discussion between the socialist E. B. Bax and the bourgeois radical C. Bradlaugh on the subject: "Will Socialism Benefit the English People?" The discussion was conducted in the form of articles; in total, three articles from each participant were published in the journal. Bax spoke in defense of socialism, Bradlaugh — against it.

"The Commonweal" ("The Common Good") — an English weekly journal, published in London in 1885–1891, 1893–1894, organ of the Socialist League.

Charles Bradlaugh — an English journalist and political figure, bourgeois radical; made sharp attacks on K. Marx and the International Working Men's Association.

43 On March 19, 1883, F. A. Sorge wrote to F. Engels that, since H. George's propaganda in America was harming the workers' movement, it would be appropriate to publish K. Marx's letter to Sorge of June 20, 1881; this letter contained criticism of H. George's book "Progress and Poverty," published in New York in 1880 (see K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 35, pp. 162–165 and this collection, pp. 215–216).

44 On November 8, 1887, elections to legislative assemblies took place in 12 states of the USA. H. George, whose candidacy was put forward in the state of New York by the United Labor Party, received 60,000 votes and was not elected.

The United Labor Party was founded during preparations for municipal elections in New York in the fall of 1886 for joint political action by the working class. The initiator of the party's creation was the New York Central Labor Union — a union of trade unions that arose in 1882. Following the example of New York, such parties were established in a number of other cities.

45 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, p. 568.

46 Edward McGlynn — an American Catholic priest; in 1886–1887 — a supporter of H. George and one of the leaders of the United Labor Party, for which he was excommunicated; subsequently broke with George and in 1888–1889 solely headed this party.

47 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, p. 578.

48 This refers to a decision made at a conference of the United Labor Party of the state of New York held in mid-August 1887 to expel socialists from this party.

49 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, p. 588.

50 See K. Marx's letter to F. A. Sorge of June 20, 1881 (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 35, pp. 162–165 and this collection, pp. 215–216).

51 F. Engels refers to the elections for the Mayor of New York held on November 2, 1886; H. George was nominated as a candidate by the United Labor Party, receiving 68,110 votes, i.e., 31% of all votes.

52 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, pp. 589–590.

53 Hohenzollerns — the dynasty of German emperors (1871–1918).

Frederick, Frederick III (Hohenzollern) — King of Prussia (1797–1840).

William, William II (Hohenzollern) — German Emperor and King of Prussia (1888–1918).

54 In 1847, on the eve of the 1848 revolution, many scandalous cases of corruption involving French state officials were exposed in France. For more on this, see F. Engels' article "The Decline and Approaching Fall of Guizot. — The Position of the French Bourgeoisie" (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 4, pp. 186–193).

55 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 37, p. 20.

56 Engels refers to the Hague Congress of the International, held September 2–7, 1872. At the congress, the multi-year struggle of K. Marx and F. Engels against petty-bourgeois sectarianism in the workers' movement came to completion. The leaders of the anarchists were expelled for schismatic activity. The Bakuninists, refusing to recognize the decisions of the Hague Congress, united with other anti-Marxist currents and de facto split the First International.

57 Paul Brousse — a French bourgeois socialist; in 1879 entered the French Workers' Party, subsequently — one of the leaders and ideologues of the opportunistic trend in the socialist movement of France — possibilism.

58 The Sonvillier Circular is the name given to a statement adopted at a congress of the Bakuninist Jura Federation held November 12, 1871 in Sonvillier, "Circular to All Federations of the International Working Men's Association." Directed against the General Council and the London Conference of 1871, the circular counterposed anarchist dogmas about political indifference and complete autonomy of sections to the decisions of the conference, and also contained slanderous attacks on the activities of the General Council. In the circular, the Bakuninists proposed that all federations demand the immediate convening of a congress to revise the General Statutes of the International and to condemn the General Council.

59 This refers to the decision of the Sankt-Gallen Congress of the Socialist Workers' Party of Germany to convene an international workers' congress in 1888.

60 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 37, p. 191.

61 This refers to a campaign launched by opportunistic groups — the possibilists in France and their supporters from the Social-Democratic Federation in England, aimed at discrediting the International Socialist Workers' Congress (1889). At the same time, another congress was being held in Paris, convened on the initiative of the possibilists. The possibilist congress was attended by only a small number of foreign delegates, with representation of the majority of them being purely fictitious. An attempt to unite the two congresses was unsuccessful, since the possibilist congress made a new verification of the mandates of the delegates of the Marxist congress a condition for union.

62 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 37, pp. 210–211.

63 John Elliot Burns — an English political figure. In the 1880s — one of the leaders of trade unions, participant in a number of strikes. Was a member of the English Social-Democratic Federation but soon left it. In 1889 entered the council of London County. In 1892 was elected to parliament, where he spoke against the interests of the working class and for collaboration with capitalists.

Henry Edward Manning — an English cardinal (from 1875). Known as one of the most zealous defenders of the secular power of the Pope.

64 Henry Aaron Isaacs — Lord Mayor of London (1889–1890).

65 Henry Hyde Champion — an English socialist, publisher, and publicist; until 1887 — member of the Social-Democratic Federation, subsequently — one of the leaders of the trade-unionist Workers' Electoral Association in London; for a time maintained behind-the-scenes connections with the Conservatives; in the 1890s emigrated to Austria, where he took active part in the workers' movement.

66 Tom Mann — a prominent figure in the English workers' movement. In the 1890s of the 19th century — one of the organizers and secretary of the Independent Labour Party of England. During the years of the world imperialist war — an internationalist. Member of the Communist Party of Great Britain from its formation (1920).

67 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 37, pp. 269–270.

68 This refers to the first congress of German social-democracy after the repeal of the exceptional law against socialists, held October 12–18, 1890 in Halle. The congress was attended by 410 delegates. The congress approved the party's statutes; at W. Liebknecht's proposal, it adopted a decision to prepare, for the next party congress in Erfurt, a draft of a new program and to publish it three months before the congress for discussion in local party organizations and the press. The question of party press and the position of the party toward strikes and boycotts was also discussed.

69 In late March 1890, a group of Berlin social-democrats, including M. Schippel, published an appeal entitled "What Must Happen on May 1?," in which they called on workers to conduct a general strike on that day. This action reflected the position of the "Youngsters" — a finally formed in 1890 petty-bourgeois semi-anarchist oppositional group in German social-democracy. Its core consisted of students and beginning literati (hence the name of the opposition), who claimed the role of theoreticians and leaders of the party. After the repeal of the exceptional law against socialists, the "Youngsters" ignored the changed conditions of the party's activity, rejected the necessity of using legal forms of struggle, spoke out against social-democracy's participation in elections to parliament and use of the parliamentary platform, demagogically accused the party and its leadership of defending the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, of opportunism, of violating party democracy. In October 1891, the Erfurt Congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany expelled several leaders of the opposition from the party.

70 The Exceptional Law against Socialists was introduced in Germany by Bismarck's government in 1878 for the purpose of combating the workers' and socialist movement. This law forbade all organizations of the social-democratic party, mass workers' organizations, the workers' press; socialist literature was confiscated; social-democrats were subjected to persecution and expulsion. However, the social-democratic party, which with the active help of K. Marx and F. Engels managed to overcome both opportunistic and "ultra-left" elements in its ranks, succeeded, by correctly combining illegal work with the use of legal possibilities, in significantly strengthening and expanding its influence among the masses. In 1890, under pressure from the masses and an increasingly powerful workers' movement, the Exceptional Law against Socialists was repealed.

71 This refers to the procedures established by J. Schweitzer in the General German Workers' Association, of which he was president in 1867–1871.

Johann Baptist Schweitzer — a German public figure and writer; having been elected president of the General German Workers' Association, pursued a Lassallean, opportunistic tactic of agreements with the Prussian government, was a supporter of the junker-Prussian path of unifying Germany "from above." K. Marx and F. Engels subjected Schweitzer's "royal-Prussian governmental socialism" to sharp criticism. Within the Association, Schweitzer pursued a policy of personal dictatorship, which provoked discontent among its members. In 1871, Schweitzer was forced to resign as president.

72 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 37, pp. 373–374.

73 This refers to A. Bebel's report "The Situation in Europe and Socialism," which he delivered at a meeting in the 4th electoral district in Berlin on October 5, 1891. (A report of the address was published in "Vorwarts" no. 235, October 8, 1891.) Tracing the direction of the foreign policy of European states since the Franco-Prussian War, Bebel noted that his views on this question, in particular on Russia's policy, coincide with the views of K. Marx and F. Engels. But this remark was omitted from the newspaper report, which Bebel wrote to Engels about with annoyance on October 9, 1891.

74 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 38, p. 158.

75 In speaking of the Fabians, F. Engels refers to the Fabian Society — an English reformist organization founded by representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia in 1884; its main leaders were Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the society took its name from the Roman general of the 3rd century B.C., Fabius Maximus, nicknamed the "Cunctator" (Delayer) for his waiting tactic of avoiding decisive battles in the war against Hannibal). Members of the Fabian Society were predominantly representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia; they spoke out against Marx's doctrine of the class struggle of the proletariat and socialist revolution and claimed that it was possible to transition from capitalism to socialism through small reforms, gradual transformations of society with the aid of so-called "municipal socialism." The Fabian Society played the role of one of the conductors of bourgeois influence on the working class, a hotbed of opportunistic and reformist ideas in the English workers' movement. Lenin characterized Fabianism as "the most complete expression of opportunism and liberal workers' politics" (Complete Collected Works, vol. 26, p. 267). In 1900, the Fabian Society entered the Labour Party. "Fabian Socialism" serves as one of the sources of the ideology of revisionism and reformism.

76 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 39, pp. 7–8.

77 The Social-Democratic Federation — an English socialist organization, created in August 1884 on the basis of the Democratic Federation; united diverse socialist elements, predominantly from the intelligentsia. The leadership of the Federation for a long time remained in the hands of reformists headed by H. Hyndman, who pursued opportunistic and sectarian policy. The group of revolutionary Marxists within the Federation (E. Marx-Aveling, E. Aveling, T. Mann, and others), in opposition to Hyndman's line, conducted a struggle for establishing close ties with the mass workers' movement. After the split occurring in the fall of 1884 and the formation by representatives of the left wing of an independent organization in December 1884 — the Socialist League — the influence of opportunists in the Federation increased. However, under the influence of the revolutionary sentiments of the masses, the process of forming revolutionary elements dissatisfied with the opportunistic leadership continued within it. In 1907, in conditions of a rise in the workers' movement, the Federation was transformed into the Social-Democratic Party, which, having united in 1911 with the left elements of the Independent Labour Party, took the name of the British Socialist Party. Some members of this party subsequently participated in the creation of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

78 This is how F. Engels called members of the Socialist Workers' Party of North America, created in 1876 at a congress in Philadelphia as a result of the merger of American sections of the First International and other socialist organizations in the USA. The majority of the party's members were immigrants (mainly Germans), weakly connected with native American workers. Within the party there was struggle between the leadership, consisting mainly of Lassalleans, and the Marxist wing, led by K. Marx's and F. Engels' comrade-in-arms F. A. Sorge. The party proclaimed the struggle for socialism as its program; however, as a result of the sectarian policy of its leadership, which ignored work in mass organizations of the American proletariat, it never became a truly revolutionary Marxist party.

79 See G. W. F. Hegel. "Wissenschaft der Logik." In: Werke, Bd. IV, Berlin, 2. Aufl., 1841.

80 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 39, p. 207.

81 The Independent Labour Party — a reformist organization, founded by leaders of the "new trade unions" in 1893 in conditions of revival of strike struggle and strengthening of the movement for independence of the English working class from bourgeois parties. Into the party entered members of the "new trade unions" and a number of old trade unions, representatives of the intelligentsia and petty bourgeoisie, who came under the influence of the Fabians. The party was headed by Keir Hardie. The leadership of the party from its very inception took bourgeois-reformist positions, devoting main attention to parliamentary forms of struggle and making deals with the Liberal Party. Characterizing the Independent Labour Party, Lenin wrote that "in fact it was always a party dependent on the bourgeoisie, an opportunistic party" (Complete Collected Works, vol. 39, p. 90). In 1900, the Independent Labour Party entered the Labour Party.

82 "Labour Leader" ("Worker's Leader") — an English weekly newspaper. Published from 1891. From 1893 — organ of the Independent Labour Party. Until 1904, its editor was J. K. Hardie.

James Keir Hardie — a figure in the English workers' movement, reformist, one of the leaders of the Independent Labour Party and one of the founders of the Labour Party. In 1892 was elected to parliament, conducted a policy of conciliation with representatives of bourgeois parties. At the beginning of the world imperialist war took a centrist position, then openly joined the social-chauvinists.

83 Liberal-Unionists — supporters of preserving the union with Ireland, a group led by J. Chamberlain, which split off in 1886 from the Liberal Party due to disagreements on the Irish question. The Liberal-Unionists de facto, and formally a few years later, joined the Conservative Party.

84 Home Rule — the demand for granting Ireland self-government within the British Empire, put forward in the 1870s by the Irish liberal bourgeoisie. The introduction of Home Rule was intended to create a separate Irish parliament while preserving key positions in the hands of English ruling circles.

85 See K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 39, p. 247.

Paul Lafargue — an outstanding figure in the international workers' movement, a talented publicist, one of the first followers of scientific communism in France, a close friend and comrade-in-arms of K. Marx and F. Engels.

86 This refers to G. Vollmar's speech at the congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany in Frankfurt-am-Main on October 25, 1894, a report of which was published in "Vorwarts," first supplement to no. 250, October 26, 1894.

Georg Heinrich Vollmar — a German social-democrat, one of the leaders of the opportunistic, reformist wing of German social-democracy; repeatedly elected deputy to the German Reichstag and Bavarian Landtag; during the First World War — a social-chauvinist.

87 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 39, pp. 256–258.

88 This refers to the congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany held in Frankfurt-am-Main on October 21–27, 1894. At the congress, the co-rapporteur on the main item on the agenda — the agrarian question — was the leader of Bavarian social-democrats Vollmar, who demanded the inclusion in the draft agrarian program being developed of points reflecting not only the interests of the laboring peasantry but also of the well-to-do strata of the countryside, rural bourgeoisie. Although several delegates objected to Vollmar, on the whole his opportunistic position did not receive proper opposition at the congress. The congress elected a special commission to work out a draft agrarian program as a supplement to the party's program.

89 The Second Congress of Bavarian social-democratic organization took place on September 30, 1894 in Munich. On the agenda were two questions: on the activity of social-democrat deputies to the Bavarian Landtag and on agitation among peasants. On both points, G. Vollmar and K. Grillenberger succeeded in gaining the support of the congress majority. The activity of the faction in the Landtag was approved, and a decision was made to create a special organization of Bavarian social-democrats under the central leadership of its representatives in the Landtag — Vollmar, Grillenberger, and others.

90 By analogy with the separatist union of reactionary Catholic cantons in Switzerland in the 1840s of the 19th century, F. Engels ironically called the separatist position taken by Bavarian social-democrats a "Sonderbund."

91 K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 39, pp. 277–278.

92 See K. Marx's letter to F. Sorge of October 19, 1877 (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 34, pp. 234–235).

Karl Höchberg — a German right-wing social-democrat, journalist; founded and financed a number of newspapers and journals of a reformist direction.

93 See K. Marx's letter to F. Sorge of September 19, 1879 (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 34, pp. 324–325).

94 See K. Marx's letter to F. Sorge of June 20, 1881 (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 35, pp. 163–164 and this collection, pp. 215–216).

95 The words are taken from F. Engels' letter to F. Sorge of December 31, 1884 (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 36, p. 228).